The Elephant in the Room: Image Authenticity and 9/11 Truth

Video and photographic evidence is an important part of the 9/11 evidence kit. From the Naudet’s capturing of the first explosions at WTC to the collapse of WTC7 late in the day to the aftermath at ground zero, the pentagon and Shanksville, the video and photographic images of the day have been instrumental in creating much of our understanding of the events of 9/11. Many have presented various images in support of their positions, yet the authenticity of many of these images has never been established.

I would like to address two questions: 1) Which images can we trust? 2) How can we assess the authenticity of a particular image?

Considering the technologies available to anyone with a computer, prudence dictates a healthy skepticism regarding the authenticity of much of the video and photographic “evidence” presented by all parties. Whether through the insertion of objects or the masking/blurring/removal of others, the forgers have manipulated much of the available imagery. Trust must be earned. If we are to include video and photographic images in our evidence kit we must first establish, to the best of our ability, their authenticity.

The most telling clue of forgery in images is anomalies in “light and shadows”. It is extremely difficult to accurately create the appropriate lighting/shading/shadow throughout a “doctored” image. Many forgers rely on the viewer’s attention being focused only upon certain key elements and not on "less important” elements. It is often these minor elements which reveal the forgery. Additionally, the forger often creates anomalous “shadows” over large areas in an attempt to ‘resolve’ these issues. Careful examination of the lighting, shading and shadows of an image is quite useful in establishing its authenticity.

In addition to the “light and shadows”, image manipulation may be discovered through a careful examination of the various elements contained in the image. Problems can include: scale of objects, location, position, coloring and relative clarity. Those who manipulate the images often exclude clear images of any easily identifiable objects such as street signs, storefronts, license plates, clocks, watches, faces, etc. and often blur these objects or include inserted images to mask these and other objects. Foregrounds and backgrounds may have been inserted to further deceive the viewer.

By closely examining the images for ourselves, we are able to more accurately assess their authenticity. Some may be shocked to learn that some of images they have relied upon in forming their opinions have been manipulated. Others will gain a better understanding of the widespread nature of the problem. Hopefully, all of us can proceed with a firmer reliance on the authenticity of the images we put forth as evidence.

In our desire to fill in the missing pieces of the 9/11 puzzle, it is tempting to use any evidence which appears to supports our position or which might cast doubt upon the “official story”. However, reliance on forged evidence in the short term will prove disastrous in the long term as it will, inevitably, undermine the credibility of our case. It is time to examine all of the video and photographic images for evidence of forgery and to leave in the evidence kit only those found to be authentic.

Excellent Blog! Authentication of Images is Important...

... and necessary in today's photoshop world. I do remember seeing at least one picture with the street sign blurred, although cannot remember offhand where I saw it.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

There was that one picture...

Most people believe the 'Flight 93 plume' photo is fake

in current LC poll:

The FBI have there finger prints all over this one. I think it's one of our BEST chances for the movement to get a victory by solving something.

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

The "plume" photo is a fake but

won't they just hang that on Val?

The "photos" and story of Photojournalist Tim Shaffer -

-are full of 'problems' which suggest forgery and fabrication.

Thanks for all of your efforts KT.

Great site, lots of information.

I'm sure they'll try to hang it on Val, but...

The FBI are going to have to explain why they took her memory card and possibley hard drive back with them and what they meant by they "saw debris" flying out of the plume.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Not saying it's not a BIG problem, just

that her photo shows only the plume while the "photojournalist" is showing the "crash site" with people.

If the latter are forgeries (have a CLOSE look), they've got even bigger problems.

I'm not discounting the importance of the fake plume photo, just trying to further analyze the other "photos" as well.

Thoughts on the "photojournalist" work?

Point Taken

I take your point. Yet someone today said everything: the time has come to go to the next stage anyway. There is already enough evidence for an inquiry.

The big question, though, is whether there will be a new inquiry, and it is an even bigger question whether we shall *ever* get to the bottom of the wickedness that was 9/11... at least in *our* lifetimes.


Indeed you are right, regardless of where we stand on the 9/11 issue. By that I mean that, while many of us agree that we are being lied to, we are clearly in disagreement about what we think did happen.

Would it not be an idea for the 9/11 scholars, and bloggers to form a catalogue of images that we *accept* as bona fide, and perhaps also a list of those we regard as suspect?

While I am on the subject, has anyone seen the video clips at - and have any opinions as to whether these genuine or manipulated? This is potentially important stuff, as especially.

Any opinions?

If one scientifically proves

If one scientifically proves an image/video/document/etc. has been tampered with, that is indeed a good thing. But to add a certification system and thus artificially remove key pieces of evidence is perhaps not a good thing. It could easily be exploited to raise unwarranted doubt.

In essense you would have to PROVE your evidence is valid. It would shrink the evidence pool a great deal.

Now if a system were to be used to add a level of confidence to evidence, that would be a good thing, but to require it would be a threshold that most of the current evidence would fail.

The way I see it there is a vast ocean of evidence still hidden under the guise of National Security. Without some of the evidence that has not be proven to be tampered, there is no basis for much of the current research that exists today.

Agreed, best to use

your own eyes and your own judgement.

Observation can then be shared.

Both of those clips

deserve much scrutiny.

The first has problems with light, camera position and a few anomalies at the tops of the towers.

Naudet is essentially a full-length forgery. Best viewed frame-by-frame from the DVD.

Happy hunting.

I guess it is the "Elephant in the Room"

(and it's still sitting there)